Digital Feedback Methods

By Jennifer Schluer

The crucial role of feedback in the learning process is undisputed. But how can feedback be exchanged in the digital age? This book equips teachers and learners with a research-based overview of digital feedback methods. This includes, for instance, feedback in text editors, cloud documents, chats, forums, wikis, surveys, mails as well as multimodal feedback in video conferences and recorded audio, video and screencast feedback. The book discusses the advantages and limitations of each digital feedback method and offers suggestions for their practical application in the classroom. They can be utilized in online teaching as well as to enrich on-site teaching. The book also provides ideas for combining different feedback methods synergistically and closes with recommendations for developing dynamic digital feedback literacies among teachers and students.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Narr Francke Attempto Verlag
• Release date: Sep 5, 2022
• ISBN: 9783823303800

Book preview

Foreword

When I started to incorporate digital feedback and assessment methods in my teacher education courses several years ago, my students (pre-​service English language teachers) were definitely highly interested and engaged in trying out different digital methods. However, from the perspective of prospective teachers, some of them were less enthused. A student’s comment during the course evaluation in late January 2020 might be representative of such a conservative stance: Well, this is definitely very interesting, but as teachers, all we need is pen and paper. While not everybody agreed, this statement nevertheless reflects a frequent reservation that was echoed by many teachers and scholars in the pre-​Covid-19 era. Three months later, when the first digital semester had begun due to the lockdown of educational institutions during Covid-19, the echo had changed. My pre-​service teachers said, it’s great that you have responded to the current requirements so quickly and offer such a highly relevant seminar about digital feedback methods. In fact, I had done it for years already; it is the context that has changed and that has heightened the relevance of digital methods.

After two years of teaching under Covid-19 conditions, I felt the need to share important research findings and best practices about digital feedback methods in the book that is currently displayed on your screen, opened on your desk or held in your hands. The suggested digital feedback methods can be used in online and hybrid teaching settings, but also in technology-​enriched face-​to-​face classrooms as well as in other blended learning contexts.

Definitely, this book is not meant to be fully exhaustive since digital developments are dynamic and ongoing. Rather, the book should serve as a source of inspiration and practical guidance for students and teaching staff at schools and universities. Teacher educators and other higher education staff can use it to widen their repertoire of digital feedback and assessment methods. Likewise, the book or its individual chapters can be utilized as a resource for seminars or training sessions about digital feedback. Students may consult it to practice new feedback methods themselves to improve their own learning (e.g. digital peer feedback) and teaching, e.g. during placements at schools or other educational institutions or even at companies. Students and educators can test and expand their knowledge and skills by solving the tasks in the individual chapters and by consulting the supplemental (online) materials.

As feedback is ideally understood as an ongoing dialogue about learning, the readers are invited to share their experiences with me by contacting me via e-​mail or by contributing to the following electronic document:

https://padlet.com/JSchluer/DigiFeedBookSchluer22

At this point, I would like to thank my students for their contributions and constructive comments in my seminars. I hope that many further students will benefit from the ideas presented in this book. Special thanks go to the University of Kassel for some initial funding at the very start of my explorations in the field of screencast feedback as well as to the Saxon State Ministry for Higher Education, Research and the Arts (Sächsisches Staatsministerium für Wissenschaft, Kultur und Tourismus) for granting me a digital fellowship in 2021/22. Last but not least, I would like to thank my student assistants: Shanqing Gao for assisting me in up-​dated literature searches, Jo-​Luise Fröhlich for helping me in the process of creating the handouts for the online supplement, and Lucian Thom for contributing some first drafts of the sketches that illustrate the different digital feedback methods.

Questions/ Tasks before reading the book

Knowledge and reflection questions:

1 Introduction

Feedback can help optimize learning and teaching processes if implemented effectively (Hattie, 2009; 2012; Wisniewski, Zierer, & Hattie, 2020). However, most of the research has concentrated on rather traditional feedback methods, such as oral feedback in the classroom or (hand-)written feedback for written assignments. Despite the ubiquity of digital technologies in our lives and the shift to digital teaching due to the Covid-19 pandemic, many teachers and lecturers only seize a small portion of its affordances, especially when it comes to digital feedback methods (for Germany see e.g. Forsa, 2020a; 2020b; Wildemann & Hosenfeld, 2020). The reasons for this can be various, such as lacking equipment or support, but also unwillingness and unawareness of the possibilities that exist. Therefore, the aim of this book is to introduce a variety of methods that teachers (and students!) can use to exchange feedback in digital ways. The focus is set on what teachers and learners can do and create themselves (technology-​mediated feedback), not on what a pre-​configured software such as a learning app or game may offer (technology-​generated feedback).

Thus, the term method has been chosen deliberately, as the emphasis will be placed on the ways in which teachers and learners can actively engage in the digital feedback process. The stress will not be put on specific tools, software, apps or instruments, but rather on didactic design recommendations based on a thorough review of the empirical findings and best practices. Nevertheless, different software programs will be cited to give the readers an orientation or inspiration for selecting the apps that they find most suitable and convenient for their purposes. In fact, some learning management systems (LMS) already exist that incorporate tools for creating digital feedback in various ways (e.g. Canvas, Moodle, Blackboard) (cf. Winstone & Carless, 2020, p. 75). Since, however, not every school or university uses the same platform, several alternative tools will be suggested. In that respect, it needs to be borne in mind that software changes dynamically with technological innovations and market demands. Hence, on the one hand, some cited software could no longer be available at the time of reading this book (e.g. as a free software); on the other hand, software updates might now include additional functions that compensate for the shortcomings described in the book. The idea of continuous professional development is therefore not only integral to this book, but even more so to the teaching profession (Redecker & Punie, 2017). Ideas for experimenting with the different digital methods and discussing them in light of dynamically shifting learning environments will therefore be provided at numerous points in order to foster digital feedback literacies.

To reach this aim in a stepwise manner, the book will be structured as follows: After an introduction to the relevance of feedback in general and digital feedback in particular, an overview of different digital feedback methods will be provided. Each method will be described and defined before its advantages and challenges will be discussed. Based on existing studies and best practices, recommendations for their implementation will be derived. Different feedback directions and combinations will be suggested to create optimal learning conditions. Their exact use, however, will depend on the learning goal and the specific educational environments teachers and learners find themselves in. The book will consider both learners’ and teachers’ perspectives, since feedback will only be successful if it is understood and acted upon (Gibbs & Simpson, 2005, pp. 23–25; Hattie & Clarke, 2019, p. 121; Winstone & Carless, 2020, p. 28). Special emphasis will therefore be given to practical strategies for teachers and students during feedback provision and reception, respectively (cf. Hattie & Clarke, 2019, pp. 79, 169). Beyond that, the readers are invited to experiment with digital feedback in their own classrooms in pedagogically motivated and meaningful ways. Lastly, the book will conclude with suggestions for the development of digital feedback literacies in a dynamically changing world to expand the theoretical frame that is presented in the next chapter.

2 Theoretical frameworks and foundations

The present chapter lays important theoretical and conceptual foundations for the discussion of the different digital feedback methods and their possible combinations in the subsequent chapters. First, it clarifies the understanding of feedback that builds the basis for the following argumentation. Section 2.1 addresses the role of feedback in the learning process and gives suggestions regarding the contents, language and style as well structures of feedback messages. Moreover, a summary of essential feedback characteristics is offered. All of them are relevant for engaging in learning-​oriented feedback dialogues and require feedback literacies from teachers and learners alike. This key term will be explained in section 2.2 before the emphasis will be shifted to digital aspects. In that regard, section 2.3 discusses the notion of digital literacies and presents some popular frameworks for teachers. Finally, section 2.4 previews the contents of the ensuing chapter by categorizing different types of digital feedback. Readers who are already familiar with these theoretical constructs and frameworks may skip the next sections and move on to the digital implementation in chapter 3.

2.1 Feedback

Questions/ Tasks before reading the chapter

Knowledge and reflection questions:

2.1.1 Defining and contextualizing the role of feedback in the learning process

Feedback plays multiple and multifaceted roles in learning (Butler & Winne, 1995, p. 246). Hattie and Timperley (2007) even underline that [f]eedback is one of the most powerful influences on learning and achievement (p. 81, emphasis omitted; see also Hattie, 2009; 2012; Wisniewski et al., 2020). In educational settings, feedback has been investigated for more than a century, which has led to a vast and even contradictory body of research (cf. Kluger & DeNisi, 1996, p. 255; Narciss, 2008, p. 126). Table 1 briefly shows how the conceptualizations of feedback have changed.

Table 1:Changing views of feedback

In the first two views, learners’ active role in the feedback process was not sufficiently recognized. From today’s viewpoint, however, the notions of learner agency and multi-​directional dialogues are central to the effectiveness of feedback. Only if students actively participate in the entire feedback process, i.e. seek feedback, give feedback and engage with the feedback they receive, can learning be improved (e.g. Carless, 2020; Winstone & Carless, 2020; see section 2.2). For now, we may define feedback as an interactive process of exchanging information that persons can use in order to regulate their further learning and thus to improve their performance (cf. the review by Carless, 2019, p. 708). The exact definition of feedback is, however, contested and probably highly dependent on contextual conditions and developments (for a recent review see Lipnevich & Panadero, 2021).

Altogether, we may note that the changing conceptualizations of feedback correlate with the more general shift from teaching to learning in education (Welbers & Gaus, 2005, cited by Bauer, 2017, p. 162) and the altered teacher role from the sage on the stage to the guide on the side (King, 1993, p. 30, quoted by Rau, 2017, p. 143). Clearly, feedback should be regarded as an integral part of the daily teaching and learning practices (cf. Huba & Freed, 2000, p. 8). Without feedback, learners do not know whether their learning was successful and what they could do in order to improve (cf. Hattie & Timperley, 2007). Likewise, without feedback, teachers do not know whether their teaching had the desired effect and what they could do in order to support further learning (e.g. Hattie, 2009; 2012; Hattie & Clarke, 2019). Poehner and Infante (2016) therefore argued for seeing teaching and assessment as dialectically related features of a single educational activity intended to promote learner development (p. 275). At this point, a remark on the relation between feedback and assessment might be helpful.

Generally speaking, assessment is the evaluation of or judgment about someone’s work, performance or progress (Sadler, 1989, p. 120; cf. Fulcher & Owen, 2016, p. 109). To accomplish this, the assessment process involves a variety of procedures for describing, collecting, documenting, scoring, and interpreting information about teaching and learning (Khan, 2018, p. 2) that stem from multiple and diverse sources in order to develop a deep understanding of what students know, understand, and can do with their knowledge as a result of their educational experiences (Huba & Freed, 2000, p. 8, emphasis omitted). Feedback is one of these procedures and it has typically been associated with formative assessment rather than summative assessment. Some important characteristics are outlined in Table 2.

Table 2:Formative and summative assessment

Through formative assessment, learners thus obtain information about the progress they are making, which may help them to re-​focus their attention and re-​direct their utilization of learning strategies, for instance (Franke & Handke, 2012, p. 151). It presupposes an accurate diagnosis of the students’ learning progress and ideally incorporates helpful guidance or scaffolded support (Evans, 2013, p. 102; Weaver, 2006, p. 388).

Hence, even though feedback is a common term, it actually comprises much more than the word itself would imply. More precisely, feedback should address the following three questions that were proposed by Hattie and Timperley (2007, p. 86):

In other words, any feedback message should be clear about (1) the learning goals that are to be reached, (2) the learners’ current position in their learning journey, and (3) the steps the learners could take in order to move forward towards the desired target.

Importantly, feedback is not only information or advice about what still needs to be done, but also an acknowledgment of what learners have already achieved and the efforts they have invested. For instance, assessors may outline the progress learners have made as compared to a previous point in time (progress feedback according to Voerman, Meijer, Korthagen, & Simons, 2012, p. 1108). This and other kinds of positive feedback can have important motivational functions (cf. Mory, 2004, p. 766). It may enhance learners’ self-​efficacy, i.e. the level of confidence they have in themselves to reach their goals or fulfill a particular task (Hattie & Clarke, 2019, p. 82; see also Hoska, 1993, p. 117; Mory, 2004, p. 766). Accordingly, their persistence in continuing learning and investing further effort can be strengthened (cf. Narciss, 2008, p. 134). Cultivating such a growth mindset in the classroom means that students learn to believe in growth, i.e. that they can improve their learning by investing effort (Dweck, 1999, cited in Nicol & Macfarlane-​Dick, 2006, p. 212). This involves challenging themselves, working hard, persisting and not being afraid of making mistakes (Hattie & Clarke, 2019, p. 14; Hoska, 1993, p. 107). In that regard, their view of errors might need to be modified. Errors should be considered as opportunities for learning (Hattie, 2012, pp. 115, 124; Hattie & Clarke, 2019, pp. 29, 47; Hattie & Timperley, 2007, p. 104) and as a natural part of the learning process (Hoska, 1993, p. 112). They provide insight into learners’ progress and understanding of a subject, notion or language and are thus helpful for teachers to scaffold the further learning process accordingly (cf. Corder, 1967, p. 167; Diaz Maggioli, 2018, p. 2; Hattie, 2012, p. 16).

In short, positive and negative feedback are comments about strengths and weaknesses (Vogt & Froehlich, 2018, p. 139). Positive feedback is information about learners’ correct task fulfillment, the progress they have made or useful strategies they have applied. By contrast, negative feedback points out aspects of performance that are erroneous or worth of improvement and provides constructive advice for further development.

Hence, not only positive feedback, but also negative feedback can fulfill motivational functions. However, care must be taken that the comments refer to a specific task or task-​related processes instead of learners’ personality, lack of ability or performance in relation to others. In that respect, Hattie and Timperley (2007, pp. 86–87, 90) distinguished between four different levels at which feedback could be directed:

Examples for the last point are praising someone as a great student who has given an intelligent response (Hattie & Timperley, 2007, p. 90) or blaming him/her for being the opposite (Hoska, 1993, p. 113). Hattie and Timperley (2007, p. 90) argue that feedback at this self-​level (FS) is least effective and should be avoided for various reasons. The remaining three areas address different levels of cognitive complexity (Wisniewski et al., 2020, p. 2): from surface-​information and knowledge about the task (FT) to task-​related processes and strategy use (FP) and finally to greater ownership of one’s learning, including self-​regulated feedback-​seeking and feedback-​provision (FR) (Hattie & Clarke, 2019, pp. 76–78).

To encourage continuous development, feedback intends to always pus[h] the boundaries to increase learning (Hattie & Clarke, 2019, p. 17). As Hattie (2009) puts it, [t]he art is to provide the right form of feedback at, or just above, the level where the student is working (p. 177). This plus one feedback (Hattie & Clarke, 2019, p. 76) right above the current level resonates with Vygotsky’s (1978) idea of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). The ZPD is the difference between a learner’s potential level of performance (that they could attain through sufficient assistance, e.g. by a teacher or more proficient peer) and their present performance (Vygotsky, 1978). Successful feedback thus needs to strike a balance between the learner’s prior knowledge and the target performance by moving them forward in their ZPD (cf. Grotjahn & Kleppin, 2017a, p. 282). Therein, feedback serves as a scaffolding tool that enables learners to improve and to engage in more advanced tasks (Shute, 2008, p. 162). It might ultimately encourage life-​long and self-​regulated learning (SRL). SRL is a multidimensional construct that describes the degree to which learners can regulate different cognitive, affective, metacognitive and (inter-)actional aspects (Nicol & Macfarlane-​Dick, 2006). In that regard, Nicol and Macfarlane-​Dick (2006) suggested seven principles of good feedback practice that support self-​regulation (p. 199, emphasis omitted). It should

This list already brings to the fore many important criteria of effective feedback that will be synthesized in the next sections. However, the list does not fully reflect the importance of continuous dialogue for all seven elements, not just for the fourth one. Section 2.1.7 will therefore be devoted more deeply to the dialogic nature of feedback, including its multiple directions and the multifaceted literacies that are required from everyone who is involved.

2.1.2 Feedback contents

As with teaching in general, the content and manner of feedback messages should align with the learning goal and the student needs (Hattie & Clarke, 2019, p. 53; Mory, 2004, p. 759). There is thus no universally valid, best type of feedback, but assessors need to make purposeful decisions regarding the contents, scope and modes of feedback provision (e.g. Narciss, 2013, p. 14). The present and the following sections will therefore showcase several general options that assessors have regarding feedback provision.

Quite often, a distinction is made between the evaluative and elaborated components of feedback (Kulhavy & Stock, 1989, p. 285; Narciss, 2008). The evaluative component (verification feedback according to Kulhavy & Stock, 1989, p. 285) indicates whether or not the desired performance has been achieved. For instance, assessors state whether a learner’s response was correct or incorrect or they give the total percentage of correct solutions (for a more detailed classification see Narciss, 2008, p. 132; 2013, p. 14).

feedback = evaluation + elaboration

In contrast to the simple evaluative feedback, elaborated feedback means anything more than ‘yes-​no’ or ‘right-​wrong’ (Kulhavy & Stock, 1989, p. 285). This could comprise reasons for the (in-)correctness of a response (Dempsey, Driscoll, & Swindell, 1993, p. 25), explanations about the task, suggestions, hints or strategic advice (Narciss, 2008, pp. 135–136; 2013, pp. 14–15). Certainly, the degree of elaboration can vary (cf. Kulhavy & Stock, 1989, pp. 286–287; Narciss, 2008, p. 132), and feedback complexity thus arises from the amount and type of information that is given in a feedback message (Mory, 2004, pp. 752–753; cf. Dempsey et al., 1993, pp. 24–25, 47). Intuitively, one might think that the more elaboration, the better, but there is no conclusive evidence that suggests so (Kulhavy, 1977, p. 212; Kulhavy & Stock, 1989, p. 285). Rather, the critical point is how well and how proactively the student engages with this information (Nash & Winstone, 2017, p. 3). Indeed, if feedback messages contain more information than necessary, they might distract or overwhelm learners, thus hampering their learning process (Mory, 2004, p. 753, with reference to Phye, 1979).

What is more, the many criteria according to which a piece of work can be assessed may result in excessively long feedback. However, not only from a motivational perspective (learners’ encouragement), but also from a practical perspective (teachers’ time), it is usually impossible to judge every piece of work according to all the different criteria in full detail (Sadler, 1989, p. 131). It has therefore been recommended to limit the feedback to a few outstanding error types (Ellis, 2009a, p. 6) and fine-​tun[e] [it] to the needs of the learners (as reviewed by Ene & Upton, 2018, p. 10). For example, some recommend a maximum of three different aspects or skills, while each of them may contain positive remarks and constructive criticism (e.g. Whitehurst, 2014, and van der Zijden, Scheerens, & Wijsman, 2021, p. 51, regarding screencast feedback). Such focused feedback stands in contrast to unfocused feedback, which addresses (nearly) all errors a learner has committed (Ellis, 2009a, p. 6).

Assessors are thus advised to prioritize particular areas when giving feedback (Jug, Jiang, & Bean, 2019, p. 246; cf. also the review by Lee, 2014, p. 2). Quite often, they tend to focus on the remark-able (Sadler, 1989, p. 133), i.e. they only comment on those aspects that deviate from the norm. Of course, this does not need to be something purely negative, but it could likewise be something outstanding in the positive sense. At the same time, focused feedback will help students notice the areas that need further attention and set priorities for their further learning (cf. Diaz Maggioli, 2018, p. 6).

Overall, learning processes and products can be assessed according to numerous criteria, which can be grouped in various ways (for overviews see e.g. Biber, Nekrasova, & Horn, 2011, p. 13; Campbell & Schumm Fauster, 2013, p. 62; Grotjahn & Kleppin, 2017a, pp. 275–276; 2017b, p. 125). For instance, one may distinguish between the surface-​structure (e.g. typos, word choice, punctuation, formatting), the micro-​meaning (organization within a paragraph) and the macro-​meaning (organization across multiple paragraphs) (Cho & Cho, 2011, p. 635).

Most often, at least a general distinction is made between so-​called global and local (e.g. Nelson & Schunn, 2009, p. 380) or higher-​order and lower-​order issues. Higher-​order criteria comprise coherence, argumentation, organization and idea development etc., whereas lower-​order issues include mechanical aspects of spelling and punctuation as well as grammar and word choice (e.g. Chang, 2016, p. 82; Min, 2005, p. 298). The exact manifestation of the criteria will depend on the learning goal, the type of assignment and learners’ performance. For written assignments, usually a three-​partite classification of content, form and language is adopted, which contain several sub-​aspects, such as the following ones:

These aspects are particularly relevant for written assignments, which means that they will differ for other tasks. Prior to feedback provision, it is therefore important to identify the assessment criteria that are crucial for a particular assignment. In that regard, rubrics can fulfill meaningful functions for teachers and learners. They are systematic scoring guidelines to evaluate students’ performance […] through the use of a detailed description of performance standards (Zimmaro, 2007, p. 1, cited in Thouësny, 2012, p. 287). On the one hand, they help assessors structure their feedback appropriately and concisely (West & Turner, 2016, p. 406) and to maintain a relatively constant grading style (Thouësny, 2012, p. 286). On the other hand, they allow learners to better interpret their performance and pinpoint areas for improvement (McCarthy, 2015, p. 163; 2020, p. 187; see e.g. Moore & Filling, 2012, pp. 13–14, for examples). Accordingly, they can utilize them as a checklist for self- and peer-​assessments (see section 2.2.3) and for producing similar assignments in a more self-​regulated manner (cf. Winstone & Carless, 2020, p. 81).

The rubrics may accompany feedback that is given in other ways, e.g. as audio or video messages (see sections 3.11 to 3.13). In those audiovisual messages, assessors could then concentrate on the most important issues that are deemed relevant for a particular learner because all other points will be synthesized in the rubric (cf. Jug et al., 2019, p. 246). Moreover, depending on the learners’ prior knowledge as well as the kind of error, conscious decisions about the commenting style need to be made. This will be discussed in the following section.

2.1.3 Feedback language and commenting style

For all the different assessment areas, error indication, correction and commentary can be done in more or less direct ways (e.g. Elola & Oskoz, 2016, p. 60; Thompson & Lee, 2012). On the one hand, an error could be pointed out explicitly by giving a direct correction (Bitchener, Young, & Cameron, 2005, p. 193; Ellis, 2009b, p. 99; Ferris & Roberts, 2001, p. 163; Porsch, 2010, p. 13; Sheen & Ellis, 2011, p. 593) and maybe even an additional metalinguistic explanation of the underlying rule (Sheen, 2007, p. 275; cf. the review by Ene & Upton, 2018, p. 2).

On the other hand, it might also be pointed out implicitly, e.g. by drawing on various input enhancement techniques (Ranta & Lyster, 2018, p. 43). For example, assessors may localize an error through gesturing, vocal (volume, modulation and tone of voice) or visual emphases (highlighting, underlining, coloring etc.), error codes or color codes or some other hint instead of supplying the correct solution directly (Ellis, 2009a, pp. 7, 9; 2009b, p. 100; cf. e.g. Grotjahn & Kleppin, 2017a, p. 269; Hyland & Hyland, 2006, p. 85). They might repeat the learner utterance and stress the faulty word or word part (Sheen & Ellis, 2011, p. 594). What is more, metalanguage could be used (Ellis, 2009b, p. 100; Sheen & Ellis, 2011, p. 594) to make the learners reflect on their performance, e.g. by saying Watch out for tense use. This is cognitively more demanding for the learners than the direct provision of the correct form (Ferris, 2004, p. 60, cited by Tanveer, Malghani, Khosa, & Khosa, 2018, p. 170), but it gives the learners the chance to discover the right solution themselves (Corder, 1967, p. 168; Porsch, 2010, pp. 13–14).

Proceeding on the idea of feedback as dialogue, i.e. as a social process and communicative act (Ajjawi & Boud, 2018, p. 1108), we note that a feedback message can be formulated in many different ways. For instance, Nurmukhamedov and Kim (2010, p. 272) distinguished between statements (of students’ problems), imperatives (requiring learners to change, delete or add something), questions (raising doubt, showing uncertainty, asking for further details) and hedged suggestions (implying or suggesting to avoid direct comments) (cf. McGarrell & Alvira, 2013, p. 53). The latter two options are often used to reduce a potentially negative uptake and save the learners’ face when problematic aspects are addressed (cf. Hyland & Hyland, 2001, pp. 200–201; Nelson & Schunn, 2009, p. 380).

To mitigate, i.e. tone down, the pragmatic force of the feedback message, the use of question forms (e.g. "What about adding further examples?), hedges (It might be a good idea to include more examples.) and personal attribution (I think that further examples might strengthen your argument.) can be beneficial (cf. Hyland & Hyland, 2001, pp. 185, 198; Stannard & Mann, 2018, pp. 98–99; see also Watling & Lingard, 2019, for several useful language suggestions; cf. Kerr & McLaughlin, 2008, p. 12, for a sample script). They may encourage reflection without being too directive or imposing (cf. Nurmukhamedov & Kim, 2010, p. 273; Silva, 2012, p. 7). This way, the learners’ authority (e.g. as writers) is respected (cf. Dagen et al., 2008, cited in Vincelette & Bostic, 2013, p. 271; Hyland & Hyland, 2001, p. 194; see also Cunningham, 2017a, p. 478; 2017b, pp. 100–101, 147) and at the same time they are seen as active agents in the learning and revision process (Brookhart, 2008, cited in Campbell & Feldmann, 2017, p. 5; cf. Cunningham, 2019b, p. 97). In that respect, the use of strong action-​oriented verbs in the feedback message can foster learners’ engagement with the contents (Watling & Lingard, 2019, p. 26), for instance by writing What about adding/ changing/ omitting XY?" (cf. Rottermond & Gabrion, 2021, p. 42).

However, previous research has shown that students may find mitigated feedback confusing if the underlying pragmatic purpose remains unclear (Hyland & Hyland, 2001, pp. 206–208; 2006, p. 87; Nurmukhamedov & Kim, 2010, pp. 273, 280). This can have cultural and linguistic reasons, especially in second- or foreign-​language learning settings (Ferris, Pezone, Tade, & Tinti, 1997, pp. 175–176; Hyland & Hyland, 2019). Therefore, it is important to make learners aware of the underlying pragmatic functions of the different comment types, i.e. that hedged statements or questions likewise constitute requests for revisions and thus have a similar function as imperatives (Ferris, 1997, pp. 331–332; Nurmukhamedov & Kim, 2010, p. 281). For teachers, this presupposes critical awareness of their own commenting style and comment types as well as their potential impact (cf. Hyland & Hyland, 2001, pp. 207–208). They need to strike a balance between managing social relations (Hyland & Hyland, 2001, pp. 194, 201; 2019) and communicating feedback effectively. In that regard, also the structural make-​up of feedback messages should be considered, as will be done in the subsequent section.

2.1.4 Feedback structures

The structure of feedback exchanges is partly conditioned by the modes and tools that are utilized. However, we may also identify some commonalities that might be relevant for any feedback message. Crucially, feedback is not only a transmission of contents, but also relational work (e.g. Ajjawi & Boud, 2018, p. 1106; Winstone & Carless, 2020, pp. 149–165). In that regard, several scholars have highlighted the importance of a personal address or greeting at the start of a feedback message, e.g. by saying the first name of the student (Bakla, 2017, pp. 326–327; Henderson & Phillips, 2014, p. 7; McLeod, Kim, & Resua, 2019, pp. 196–197; White, 2021). Beyond that, it might be a good idea to repeat the name a few times at different points of the feedback, especially if the message is relatively long (see e.g. Huett, 2004, p. 41, for email feedback).

After the greeting, assessors may continue with the relational work by outlining the progress a student has already made (if the student is familiar to the instructor; e.g. Alvira, 2016, p. 84; see progress feedback in section 2.1.1) or by emphasizing the effort the learner has put into the work (Henderson & Phillips, 2014, p. 7; cf. growth mindset in section 2.1.1). Moreover, the feedback provider may thank the student for submitting the assignment (Cavaleri, Kawaguchi, Di Biase, & Power, 2019, p. 14; Cranny, 2016, p. 29118; Henderson & Phillips, 2014, p. 7; Whitehurst, 2014). At that point, assessors could include a reminder of the learning goals that were targeted by the task (cf. Walker, 2017, p. 361). Related to that, they might explain the purpose and focus of the feedback message and provide an overall evaluative summary of the learners’ task performance (Henderson & Phillips, 2014, p. 7; Nelson & Schunn, 2009, pp. 397–399; Phillips, Ryan, & Henderson, 2017, p. 365; Schluer, 2021d, p. 166). This will help to lay a common foundation for the more specific positive feedback and constructive criticism that will follow subsequently. Assessors might already preview the ensuing contents by mentioning their structural sequencing, e.g. by pinpointing the assessment criteria that will be focused on in the main body of the feedback message (e.g. Edwards, Dujardin, & Williams, 2012, pp. 107, 109; cf. the pre-​training principle by Mayer, 2002, p. 28; see section 2.1.2 on focused feedback). This is particularly useful for complex assessments.

In the main part, it is generally advisable to talk about positive aspects first before proceeding to the negative ones or areas for improvement (e.g. Bakla, 2017, p. 326; Glei, 2016; Henderson & Phillips, 2014, p. 7). In that regard, a frequently applied technique to structure a feedback message is the feedback sandwich (or feedback burger) shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1:Feedback sandwich

In the feedback sandwich, negative feedback is sandwiched between positive comments (LeBaron & Jernick, 2000, p. 14). Hence, the common structure is make positive comments; provide critique; end with positive comments (Parkes, Abercrombie, & McCarty, 2013, p. 397) or conclude with a direction for growth (LeBaron & Jernick, 2000, p. 14). Especially for negative feedback, it is important to give reasons or evidence to support their arguments (Clayton, 2018a, n.p.). This way, learners become aware of the consequences of the problem that needs to be overcome (Clayton, 2018a). In addition, assessors should suggest a possible solution or recommendation (Clayton, 2018a, n.p.) that is specific and actionable for the learners (Glei, 2016). In a more detailed manner, Nelson and Schunn (2009, pp. 397–399) recommended the following steps when talking about learners’ fulfillment of a particular assessment criterion or learning goal:

Both for the overall structure of a feedback message at the macro-​level as well as for individual feedback sequences at the micro-​level, some common patterns thus are praise–criticism, criticism–suggestion and praise–criticism–suggestion (Hyland & Hyland, 2001, p. 196).

However, as Parkes et al. (2013) explain, students who are familiar with this technique could perceive it as clichéd and insincere (p. 399, with reference to Schwenk & Whitman, 1987). Even worse, the learners might be anxiously awaiting the criticism that would follow after the first part of the feedback sandwich (Jug et al., 2019, p. 247). All too often, the negative part is introduced by the conjunction but (Jug et al., 2019, p. 247). The use of this word can be perceived as a negation of the positive feedback that has preceded it, calling attention to all the bad aspects that are in dire need of improvement (Jug et al., 2019, p. 247). Jug et al. (2019) therefore recommend using the conjunction and instead (p. 247). Still, care must be taken that the criticism is perceived as such, i.e. that the two positive slices do not dilute the negative part of the message (Jug et al., 2019, p. 247; Parkes et al., 2013, p. 398). Otherwise, learners might not be sure how